Breaking down how three common delivery methods play out on multi-family projects.
Selecting the right delivery method is one of the biggest factors in setting up a multi-family project for success. Whether you’re breaking ground on a podium-style development or planning a garden-style community, the approach you choose impacts budget, schedule, collaboration, and ultimately the return on investment.
While delivery methods aren’t sector-specific, multi-family projects bring unique challenges — long build durations, tight sites, multiple trades working simultaneously, and resident-focused amenities layered in with core building systems. That’s why multi-family work often follows the broader industry trend toward Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR). Bringing the contractor on board early keeps design, constructability and budget aligned from the start.
But how do the three most common delivery methods — Design-Bid-Build (DBB), Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) and Design-Build (DB) — play out on multi-family jobs? Here’s a breakdown through the lenses of control, speed, collaboration and cost.
Design-Bid-Build Delivery Method
DBB is considered a classic or traditional delivery method. The design is completed first, then contractors bid and complete the work. Owners hold separate contracts with the designer and the builder.
- Control: Separated — the designer is responsible for design and the contractor is responsible for the build.
- Speed: Slowest, since design must be finished before bidding starts.
- Collaboration: Minimal between all partners.
- Cost: Lowest upfront, but change orders and redesigns can drive up expenses.
DBB can be a fit for straightforward multi-family projects like garden-style apartments with repeated unit layouts and minimal shared amenities. Because designs are relatively standardized, the risk of costly redesigns is lower — and competitive bidding may produce savings. But for more complex projects with podium parking, elevators, or integrated amenities, DBB often struggles to keep pace.
“Square Apartments is a strong example of the precision and efficiency that the Design-Bid-Build delivery method makes possible,” shares Zak Olsen. “Our team successfully brought a 73-unit, four-story structure out of the ground on a tight urban site, integrating structured parking, community spaces, and modern amenities within an 86,000-plus square-foot footprint. The project demonstrates how disciplined coordination between design and construction can deliver both quality and value for our client.”
Construction Manager at Risk
CMAR brings the contractor in during design, allowing real-time input on budget, schedule and constructability. This early collaboration is why CMAR is so often chosen for multi-family.
- Control: Shared — the owner, architect and contractor collaborate from day one.
- Speed: Faster than DBB, as design and preconstruction run in parallel.
- Collaboration: Strong — early involvement of the general contractor helps avoid surprises.
- Cost: Mid range, but offers greater budget predictability.
“CMAR on multi-family projects is often the difference between a design that looks good on paper and one that actually works in the field,” explains Nate Bledsoe, a senior project manager at Ronco Construction. “Having the contractor at the table early gives us the chance to solve problems before they become costly.”
So, what does that collaboration look like in real life? During the value engineering phase of a recent project, the owner and developer for The Grant reached a point where no more features could be cut without compromising the vision. By adjusting the building footprint slightly, we created enough space for eight additional units (two per floor across four stories). This creative solution, made possible through early contractor involvement, shifted the project into financial viability without sacrificing quality.
“The more complex the project, the more CMAR makes sense,” adds Dennis Parr, Ronco’s Estimating Director. “Bringing the GC in early allows for constructability reviews, early procurement, and milestone budgets that keep the project on track.”
Design-Build Delivery Method
In DB, one entity manages both design and construction under a single contract. This creates a streamlined process with one point of accountability.
- Control: High — alignment between design and construction reduces conflicts.
- Speed: Fastest, since design and construction can overlap.
- Collaboration: Strong — but centralized under one contract.
- Cost: Typically highest, though efficiencies can offset some expenses.
DB is a strong fit for fast-track urban infill projects where owners face aggressive financing deadlines. For example, beginning site work while finalizing design for upper floors can shave months off a schedule. Owners also benefit from simplified communication with one primary point of contact — though you trade some flexibility in design decisions compared to CMAR..
Making the Right Choice for Multi-Family Projects
As you can see, each delivery method comes with trade-offs:
- DBB is slower and less collaborative but cheapest upfront so if budget is a primary goal, this method can make the most sense.
- DB is faster as design and preconstruction can overlap and is more collaborative as the contractor is involved earlier in the process. This is ideal when deadlines are tight and one point of contact is a priority.
- CMAR offers a balanced, collaborative approach with stronger budget predictability, making it a true partnership between all project stakeholders.
For multi-family developments where speed to market, cost control and design quality are all in play — CMAR often strikes the best balance. It minimizes schedule risk, supports budget discipline through milestone estimates, and fosters the collaboration needed to navigate complex design and construction challenges.
Ultimately, the right delivery method depends on your project’s goals. By clarifying your priorities — whether that’s speed, cost certainty, or control — you can choose the approach that sets your multi-family project up for success.
